RE: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review Questionnaire.

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>]

Jeff and other Task Force members:

An extension to Feb 1st would probably allow data to be analyzed
in time for Ghana.

--MM

>>> "Neuman, Jeff" <jeff.neuman@NeuLevel.biz> 12/09/01 10:23AM >>>
I think the extension is certainly warranted given the holiday season.  I
would even propose to make it a little bit longer.  I know the WHOIS and IDN
survey deadlines were extended at least once.  That being said, I am also
cognizant of the fact that we want to have some data analyzed by the Ghana
meeting.

Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Chicoine, Caroline G. [mailto:CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 6:08 PM
To: 'Milton Mueller'; nc-udrp@dnso.org; Chicoine, Caroline G.
Cc: 'Louis Touton'
Subject: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review Questionnaire.
Importance: High


I believe that the DNSO Secretariat has made the changes that some people
were concerned about so are we all in agreement that it is acceptable.
ICANN will not post it unless I can tell them we are all on board.  Rather
than have everyone respond yes (which I hope si the case)  If anyone still
has problems, please email me ASAP.

In addition, given the delays in getting it posted on the ICANN website, I
propose to extend the deadline to January 17th as suggested by Milton.  Does
anyone have any objections?

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 12:13 PM
To: nc-udrp@dnso.org; CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com 
Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 14:42:31 -0600


I think we need to go through one more 
round of preparing the questionnaire
before posting it to ICANN.

Accordingly, I would formally request that
we move the closure of comments back to January 17.


>>> "Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com> 11/20/01 16:08 PM
>>>
I have asked ICANN to publish the questionnaire on its website, but based on
the email exchanges below, it wants me to confirm whether it is ready for
posting.  It does not want to post it if we are then going to ask for
changes or retract some of it.  

Are we all satisfied that the questionnaire in its current form is okay for
posting by ICANN? Personally, I think we should go forward since the
questionnaire has been out for a week and I think changing course snow would
be disruptive, but I need to hear your thoughts, ASAP please.


 -----Original Message-----
> From: Ethan Katsh [mailto:katsh@legal.umass.edu] 
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 7:43 AM
> To: nc-udrp@dnso.org 
> Cc: council@dnso.org; ga@dnso.org 
> Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire
> 
>          I have been away and if Dan's suggestions below have already been
> implemented, I would be very pleased. But if people are still filling out
a
> form that has the kind of format flaws Milton identifies below, or if
there
> are questions that are confusing people, these should be fixed as quickly
> as possible. Given all this, we might be fortunate that there is as yet no
> notice of the questionnaire on the ICANN home page or the ICANN UDRP page.
> This, however, should be fixed quickly as well.
> 
> Ethan
> 
> At 12:00 PM 11/14/01 -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote:
> >Given the errors on the page (which are not limited to the oes you point
> >out and are duplicated in the french translation), should we not perhaps
> >wait a bit before publicizing?
> >
> >Also, does anyone know where the responses submitted are going to?
> >
> >I know people have been commenting already and I think it would be a good
> >idea to get a head start on looking at responses before the inevitable
> >final-filing deadline deluge.
> >
> >Milton Mueller wrote:
> >
> > > I intend to express these concerns at the
> > > Names Council meeting today, but for online
> > > participants I will do it here, also.
> > >
> > > 1. We need to do a much better job of publicizing
> > > the availability of this questionnaire. It is
> > > a call for public comment but the public
> > > has no idea it exists, and circulation among
> > > the small coterie of dnso mailing lists will
> > > not do the trick.
> > >
> > > The NC or ICANN should issue a news release
> > > that solicits public comment and makes the
> > > URL for it well known. There are a number of
> > > reporters who follow ICANN closely who will
> > > pick this up. It should also be highlighted
> > > on ICANN's home page.
> > >
> > > 2. Flaw in survey form
> > > On question 13, we ask "who should be
> > > responsible for the selection of the provider."
> > > The response should be a check box but
> > > instead is a ranking from 1 - 5. I found this
> > > so confusing that I was unable to answer
> > > the question at all. I suspect many others will
> > > too. But Q 13 is a crucial question.
> > >
> > > In general, our members report finding the
> > > survey format difficult to understand and use.
> > >


Caroline G. Chicoine
Thompson Coburn LLP
One Firstar Plaza
St. Louis, MO.  63101
(314) 552-6499
(314) 552-7499 (fax)
cchicoine@thompsoncoburn.com